[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53830D09.4010209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 15:14:41 +0530
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux@....linux.org.uk,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
efault@....de, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] sched: consolidation of cpu_power
Hi Vincent,
I conducted test runs of ebizzy on a Power8 box which had 48 cpus.
6 cores with SMT-8 to be precise. Its a single socket box. The results
are as below.
On 05/23/2014 09:22 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Part of this patchset was previously part of the larger tasks packing patchset
> [1]. I have splitted the latter in 3 different patchsets (at least) to make the
> thing easier.
> -configuration of sched_domain topology [2]
> -update and consolidation of cpu_power (this patchset)
> -tasks packing algorithm
>
> SMT system is no more the only system that can have a CPUs with an original
> capacity that is different from the default value. We need to extend the use of
> cpu_power_orig to all kind of platform so the scheduler will have both the
> maximum capacity (cpu_power_orig/power_orig) and the current capacity
> (cpu_power/power) of CPUs and sched_groups. A new function arch_scale_cpu_power
> has been created and replace arch_scale_smt_power, which is SMT specifc in the
> computation of the capapcity of a CPU.
>
> During load balance, the scheduler evaluates the number of tasks that a group
> of CPUs can handle. The current method assumes that tasks have a fix load of
> SCHED_LOAD_SCALE and CPUs have a default capacity of SCHED_POWER_SCALE.
> This assumption generates wrong decision by creating ghost cores and by
> removing real ones when the original capacity of CPUs is different from the
> default SCHED_POWER_SCALE.
>
> Now that we have the original capacity of a CPUS and its activity/utilization,
> we can evaluate more accuratly the capacity of a group of CPUs.
>
> This patchset mainly replaces the old capacity method by a new one and has kept
> the policy almost unchanged whereas we can certainly take advantage of this new
> statistic in several other places of the load balance.
>
> TODO:
> - align variable's and field's name with the renaming [3]
>
> Tests results:
> I have put below results of 2 tests:
> - hackbench -l 500 -s 4096
> - scp of 100MB file on the platform
>
> on a dual cortex-A7
> hackbench scp
> tip/master 25.75s(+/-0.25) 5.16MB/s(+/-1.49)
> + patches 1,2 25.89s(+/-0.31) 5.18MB/s(+/-1.45)
> + patches 3-10 25.68s(+/-0.22) 7.00MB/s(+/-1.88)
> + irq accounting 25.80s(+/-0.25) 8.06MB/s(+/-0.05)
>
> on a quad cortex-A15
> hackbench scp
> tip/master 15.69s(+/-0.16) 9.70MB/s(+/-0.04)
> + patches 1,2 15.53s(+/-0.13) 9.72MB/s(+/-0.05)
> + patches 3-10 15.56s(+/-0.22) 9.88MB/s(+/-0.05)
> + irq accounting 15.99s(+/-0.08) 10.37MB/s(+/-0.03)
>
> The improvement of scp bandwidth happens when tasks and irq are using
> different CPU which is a bit random without irq accounting config
N -> Number of threads of ebizzy
Each 'N' run was for 30 seconds with multiple iterations and averaging them.
N %change in number of records
read after patching
------------------------------------------
1 + 0.0038
4 -17.6429
8 -26.3989
12 -29.5070
16 -38.4842
20 -44.5747
24 -51.9792
28 -34.1863
32 -38.4029
38 -22.2490
42 -7.4843
47 -0.69676
Let me profile it and check where the cause of this degradation is.
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists